When using telephoto and macro lenses, it is often desirable to get tighter framing on a subject that is being photographed. There can be many reasons for wanting to make subjects appear larger in images, but the main reasons are typically related to enhancing composition, improving subject detail and increasing image resolution (particularly after extensive cropping). For example, photographing a bird with a short focal length lens from hundreds of feet away will result in the bird appearing very small and insignificant, with very little to no detail in the resulting image. But if the same bird is photographed at a closer distance or with a longer focal length telephoto lens, a lot more detail can be revealed about the bird. In addition, making the bird take a larger portion of the image can also enhance the image by reducing the amount of clutter surrounding the bird, allowing for a better overall composition. When conditions allow, it is possible to achieve tighter framing by simply walking closer to the subject or zooming in with a zoom lens. However, what if getting closer is not an option and one is already at the longest focal length of their lens? In such situations, a teleconverter can come into rescue. Teleconverters allow increasing the focal length of lenses by coupling with them and thus essentially magnifying the image, allowing for tighter framing of subjects. While teleconverters can be incredibly useful, they also have a few rather serious disadvantages that can lead to increased blur and loss of sharpness. Let’s take a look at what a teleconverter is and go over its advantages and disadvantages in more detail.
Ricoh has just posted image samples from its upcoming Pentax K-1 DSLR (see our announcement post for details). Although all of the images were shot at ISO 100 and we are yet to see high ISO image samples, the 36 MP sensor on the K-1 seems to be very similar to that of the Nikon D810 in terms of image quality and color reproduction, which is superb. At $1800, the Pentax K-1 represents phenomenal value, not only because of the sensor alone, but also because of the different technologies packed into the camera body. The “Pixel Shift” capability, in particular, deserves a lot of attention, because the camera is capable of moving its sensor in order to capture all the colors that a typical Bayer sensor is incapable of capturing in a single shot. As a result, one can get results previously only possible when shooting with a medium format camera in terms of extreme detail. This kind of technology is disruptive, because it is innovation we have previously not seen from any full-frame camera.
This week I have been heavily working on keeping our lens database up to date. With so many lens announcements coming out from different manufacturers, keeping the database current has been a challenge, since it takes quite a bit of time to add all the relevant information. Big thanks to everyone who has been sending feedback, requests and recommendations to improve our lens database. We want to make it the best and the most complete database in the world and everything we build today will be hugely beneficial for current and future readers of the site. This is why we need your help today! By letting us know about the missing lenses, errors and inconsistencies, you will be joining our efforts in compiling a great source of public information. But before that, let me first shed some light on some of the changes that we have made to the database.
If you are buying your first DSLR camera, the available options that are out there can be pretty overwhelming. In this article, I’d like to walk you through the important similarities and differences between Nikon’s most basic entry level DSLR cameras, currently the Nikon D3200 and Nikon D3300. While this won’t be an in-depth technical review, it will be a practical, hands on review that should give you enough information to make an informed decision between which camera to choose.
It is interesting how just a few years back, one way to spark a debate was to talk about Nikon vs Canon. Websites and forums would be filled with endless discussions when someone would dare to post something like “I dumped my Nikon gear and switched to Canon” (and God forbid if you said anything against Pentax, it would be a quick shortcut to get death threats). Today, it seems like the gears have changed – people are much less enthusiastic about talking about DSLR brand differences. The much bigger war it seems like is now between DSLR vs mirrorless. On one side of the fence, we’ve got DSLR shooters who defend their choice with statements like “you will only be able to take my DSLR when you pry it from my cold, dead hands” and on the other side of the fence, we now have people who say things like “mirrorless is the future, it is time for flapping mirrors to go”. Both sides have their points and arguments that make sense, but once mixed with emotions, such discussions often end up being inconclusive and meaningless. And now we have manufacturers engaging in direct attacks against each other. Sony, Fuji and a few others often compare their systems to DSLRs as part of their marketing campaigns, indicating weight / size and other advantages, whereas DSLR manufacturers keep recycling the same AF speed, reliability and system advantages. But one thing for sure – DSLRs are losing market share and interest in mirrorless technology is steadily growing. Let’s revisit the topic of DSLR vs mirrorless one more time and analyze a few more important factors.
At long last they’re all out, in stock and making every aspiring wildlife photographer on a budget scratch their head and wonder which one they should own? Of course I’m talking about the Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 VC, the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG Contemporary and the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E VR. These three budget super telephoto zoom lenses compete with each other directly at their price points, reach and heft; but the big question remains – how do they stack up optically? This was my quest when looking at the three lenses: I wanted to find out which of the three deserves the crown as the best budget-friendly super telephoto zoom. Let’s take a look at the lenses in more detail.
Since the original release of the Sony RX100 back in 2012, the company has been pushing updates to the camera and releasing one new iteration every year. Which means that as of today, we have had a total of 5 such releases: RX100, RX100 II, RX100 III, RX100 IV amd RX100 V. Sporting a 1″ sensor and superb optics from Zeiss, these point and shoot cameras have been widely popular among photographers. And thanks to their compact size and low weight, the RX100 series cameras have been highly regarded as very capable, and yet pocket-able cameras that are perfect for such needs as travel photography. Unfortunately, due to the number of the RX100 series cameras, their differences in pricing and features, it has become increasingly difficult for potential buyers to understand the main differences between these cameras. In this article, I will be comparing the key features and specifications of the RX100-series cameras, which will hopefully make it easier to see what has changed between all the releases we have seen so far.
Now that both the Nikon D5 and the Canon 1D X Mark II flagship DSLRs have been announced, we can compare the specifications of the two and see how they stack up against each other. While both cameras are very capable flagship DSLRs from top camera brands, there are notable differences worth pointing out just by looking at the specifications. Please keep in mind that in this post I won’t be comparing image quality, AF performance, and other performance characteristics between these cameras, since both cameras have not yet been released to the public yet – I will only compare already known specifications from the official press releases and technical information shared by Nikon and Canon.
The Nikon D5 has a 20.8 MP image sensor capable of shooting very high ISOs all the way to ISO 3,280,000. With the Canon 1D X Mark II now finally released, I thought it would be a good idea to post full resolution image samples from both cameras, to see how they compare. You can review the sample images from the Canon 1D X Mark II right here and see how they stack up against the Nikon D5’s. While it is too early to evaluate which one does better in terms of image quality and we are planning to provide a full comparison in our upcoming reviews, since both cameras have practically the same resolution, they are probably going to look very similar at pixel level overall.
Below are full resolution image samples from the newly-announced Canon 1D X Mark II DSLR for those who want to pixel-peep at how the camera renders images at various ISOs. Although most sample images were captured at low ISOs, there are a few images that were shot at high ISOs like 3200, 6400 and even ISO 25600. As expected, images from the 1D X Mark II look phenomenal. I have also provided full resolution sample images from the Nikon D5 right here, if you would like to compare the two. While it is too early to evaluate which one does better in terms of image quality and we are planning to provide a full comparison in our upcoming reviews, since both cameras have practically the same resolution, they are probably going to look very similar at pixel level overall.